get_employee_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes analytical outcomes rather than the tool's behavior - it doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation, what data format is returned, whether there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description focuses on analysis results rather than tool mechanics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single Korean sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's not front-loaded with the tool's core function. It immediately jumps to analytical outcomes rather than stating what the tool does. While brief, the structure prioritizes use case over operation definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It describes analytical outcomes but doesn't explain what data the tool actually retrieves, what the return format is, or how the parameters enable the described analysis. The gap between the analytical description and actual tool function creates ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide additional context about how these parameters relate to the described analysis.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states '인건비 구조 및 조직 안정성 리스크 분석' (labor cost structure and organizational stability risk analysis), which describes an analytical purpose rather than the tool's specific function. It doesn't clearly state what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves employee information data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools that also retrieve corporate data. This is closer to stating a use case than defining the tool's operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions analysis of labor costs and organizational stability, but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or how this differs from other data retrieval tools in the sibling list. Users must infer usage from the analytical description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.